Dave the Renegade:
I don’t think Johnnie was referring to North America when he started this thread Carryfast.You seem to have turned it into a Detroit versus UK battle ground.So odd and strange,a bit like life .
Cheers Dave.
Hi Dave you are correct there as I know nothing about yankee things at all I have never been there and never wanted to
My idea was to have a general discussion or dispute/argument/banter on the different merits of wagons throughout the last half century or so and how the industry and vehicles have evolved.
cheers Johnnie
Hi Johnnie,
I’m of the same opinion as yourself regarding American motors.I am always interested in the British and European/Scandinavian lorries.What fascinates me is the same as you,how they have evolved,as in the pic below.
The Bedford looks small up against the rest,also the F88 is smaller than the F10 and so on.
Cheers Dave.
The reason as to why US trucks are important to the topic is because that’s where the uk makers were (rightly) getting their ideas and componentry from to compete in the marketplace with the new ideas which were taking place in Europe at the time as the AEC 1970 concept showed.However unfortunately for companies like AEC instead of having buyers,in it’s home market, calling for them to put US,of the time and since,and modern European levels of power and cab comfort in the thing,they could only design it within the constraints of the type of thinking which applied in the mindset of it’s customers at the time.
So while Scania,Volvo and DAF etc was getting on with developing their future products British firms like AEC were just able to come up with a day cab,cab over Pete type look alike concept with a non turbocharged,underpowered motor,with the hint that a 350 hp + turbocharged motor is what the thing really needed.None of which,however, had a chance of making it into production at the time because even that was too much for the Brit buyers to get their heads around at the time .Which is exactly the type of conclusion that Bedford reached a few years later but even went for a better cab than that AEC had and established proven American power units with the right outputs and drivelines but unlike AEC actually put those advanced (for the time) products into production.
The rest is history it was all too late because of the delays in the thinking of their home market buyers at the time and it’s no fault of Bedford,and the rest,that their products still are’nt in production with accepted modern day European and US type levels of comfort with power outputs to match.
It seems strange to me that the British haulage bosses are to blame for the vehicles that British manufacturers were turning out.These same bosses who Carryfast is saying wouldnt buy high powered British motors were in fact buying foreign motors.Hes contradicting himself.The F88 and the 110 were selling over here as were the smaller F86 for the fleet buyers who were reluctant to buy the higher powered vehicles for whatever reason they had.The Scania 80s were poor and didnt sell nearly as well as the F86 .I read in ,i think 1 of Gingerfolds books, about a large tanker operator in the south of england who 1 morning looked in his yard at his British fleet half of which were laid up just as the Scania salesman came to see him…the rest is history no more British motors in his fleet and im sure this is the case for quite a few others .Anyone who says the F88/110 werent a success is having themselves on but both Swedish companies didn`t sit back they improved on what they had with the F10/111.I dont think this thread was ever about who had the highest powered engine but more on build quality and reliability and to certain extent driver and certainly operator acceptance.I remember as a teenager riding in a mandator ,thought it was great but when a F86 came along i prefered to be in that .Then a new Marathon arrived and the F86 was a poor relation.Its called progress and the foreigners were much better at it than we were.In my opinion the last proper Fodens (not the Daf cab) were a decent motor but the damage was done.ERF put a decent motor out near the end and Leyland,well i think they were guilty of more damage to British vehicle manufacturing than anyone killing off 4 in house companies they should never have been in charge of.Mr Stokes as alot to answer for
sammyopisite:
ramone I could have done with some needles of the pain killing type as when I first started you had a speedo that said you could do 0 to 35 in about .005 seconds a temp. gauge and a little arm that would pop up saying stop but when you saw it you couldn’t old Cliff who taught me had a piece of hardwood 2x2 which was excellent ( though painful ) for making sure you concentrated on what you were doing, as he only told you once. I will say that he taught me a lot and kept me doing things the correct way for the rest of my lorry driving career.
cheers Johnnie
ha ha my dad told me about those little pop up arms
Your dad told you ?
I remember the little red flag that popped up for low air or vacuum, or when the ignition light was called the pilot light, no keys it was a switch ! Anyone remember the early Seddons BRS used that had an accelerator in the middle between the clutch and brake pedal. I wasn’t old enough to drive them but still travelled some miles on the trailer brake side!
ramone:
So 9 pages of Carryfasts Detroit V whatever which wasnt really the question,i think the British manufacturers saw and acted too late to try and compete with the continentals.Cabs which were insulated against noise and weather,heaters that worked ,power steering,more than 6 speed gearboxes,and driver acceptance.......Volvo have gone from strength to strength with their little 6.7 litre and 9.6 litre bread and butter motors that couldnt hold a candle to the mighty V8 Detroit that most hauliers didnt need and didnt buy.Scania too with their 110/140 - 111/141 seemed to be a favourite Merc and Daf are still producing but the 2 which i`m suprised lasted this long are Iveco and Renault the latter now under Volvos wing were known for their poor build quality.
No 9 pages of proof that it was the retarded Brit buyers who preferred those gutless,cold,uncomfortable heaps to anything better at the time when it mattered to the Brit industry to design and develop (and being able to sell the thing when you’ve done it) on the British market.It’s just that those foreign manufacturers were luckier in having a more enlightened home market receptive to better products sooner and then used that to ttheir advantage when the Brit buyers did eventually come to their senses on power to weight ratios and comfort levels for their drivers.
But your ideas are’nt surprising being that your answer to the difference between driving something properly,as opposed to lugging the nuts off of a wagon,is OH.
The oh was in reply to the utter crap you keep spewing out
ramone:
So 9 pages of Carryfasts Detroit V whatever which wasnt really the question,i think the British manufacturers saw and acted too late to try and compete with the continentals.Cabs which were insulated against noise and weather,heaters that worked ,power steering,more than 6 speed gearboxes,and driver acceptance.......Volvo have gone from strength to strength with their little 6.7 litre and 9.6 litre bread and butter motors that couldnt hold a candle to the mighty V8 Detroit that most hauliers didnt need and didnt buy.Scania too with their 110/140 - 111/141 seemed to be a favourite Merc and Daf are still producing but the 2 which i`m suprised lasted this long are Iveco and Renault the latter now under Volvos wing were known for their poor build quality.
No 9 pages of proof that it was the retarded Brit buyers who preferred those gutless,cold,uncomfortable heaps to anything better at the time when it mattered to the Brit industry to design and develop (and being able to sell the thing when you’ve done it) on the British market.It’s just that those foreign manufacturers were luckier in having a more enlightened home market receptive to better products sooner and then used that to ttheir advantage when the Brit buyers did eventually come to their senses on power to weight ratios and comfort levels for their drivers.
But your ideas are’nt surprising being that your answer to the difference between driving something properly,as opposed to lugging the nuts off of a wagon,is OH.
The oh was in reply to the utter crap you keep spewing out
Dave the Renegade:
I don’t think Johnnie was referring to North America when he started this thread Carryfast.You seem to have turned it into a Detroit versus UK battle ground.So odd and strange,a bit like life .
Cheers Dave.
The reason as to why US trucks are important to the topic is because that’s where the uk makers were (rightly) getting their ideas and componentry from to compete in the marketplace with the new ideas which were taking place in Europe at the time as the AEC 1970 concept showed.However unfortunately for companies like AEC instead of having buyers,in it’s home market, calling for them to put US,of the time and since,and modern European levels of power and cab comfort in the thing,they could only design it within the constraints of the type of thinking which applied in the mindset of it’s customers at the time.
So while Scania,Volvo and DAF etc was getting on with developing their future products British firms like AEC were just able to come up with a day cab,cab over Pete type look alike concept with a non turbocharged,underpowered motor,with the hint that a 350 hp + turbocharged motor is what the thing really needed.None of which,however, had a chance of making it into production at the time because even that was too much for the Brit buyers to get their heads around at the time .Which is exactly the type of conclusion that Bedford reached a few years later but even went for a better cab than that AEC had and established proven American power units with the right outputs and drivelines but unlike AEC actually put those advanced (for the time) products into production.
The rest is history it was all too late because of the delays in the thinking of their home market buyers at the time and it’s no fault of Bedford,and the rest,that their products still are’nt in production with accepted modern day European and US type levels of comfort with power outputs to match.
So if I understand you correctly carryfast it was all the fault of the yanks for feeding us some inferior components and the the people in charge of our manufacturers who had looked across the atlantic instead of looking across the north sea for the new ideas and technology that is amazing and as they say you are never too old to learn
cheers Johnnie
Dave the Renegade:
I don’t think Johnnie was referring to North America when he started this thread Carryfast.You seem to have turned it into a Detroit versus UK battle ground.So odd and strange,a bit like life .
Cheers Dave.
The reason as to why US trucks are important to the topic is because that’s where the uk makers were (rightly) getting their ideas and componentry from to compete in the marketplace with the new ideas which were taking place in Europe at the time as the AEC 1970 concept showed.However unfortunately for companies like AEC instead of having buyers,in it’s home market, calling for them to put US,of the time and since,and modern European levels of power and cab comfort in the thing,they could only design it within the constraints of the type of thinking which applied in the mindset of it’s customers at the time.
So while Scania,Volvo and DAF etc was getting on with developing their future products British firms like AEC were just able to come up with a day cab,cab over Pete type look alike concept with a non turbocharged,underpowered motor,with the hint that a 350 hp + turbocharged motor is what the thing really needed.None of which,however, had a chance of making it into production at the time because even that was too much for the Brit buyers to get their heads around at the time .Which is exactly the type of conclusion that Bedford reached a few years later but even went for a better cab than that AEC had and established proven American power units with the right outputs and drivelines but unlike AEC actually put those advanced (for the time) products into production.
The rest is history it was all too late because of the delays in the thinking of their home market buyers at the time and it’s no fault of Bedford,and the rest,that their products still are’nt in production with accepted modern day European and US type levels of comfort with power outputs to match.
So if I understand you correctly carryfast it was all the fault of the yanks for feeding us some inferior components and the the people in charge of our manufacturers who had looked across the atlantic instead of looking across the north sea for the new ideas and technology that is amazing and as they say you are never too old to learn
cheers Johnnie
That ‘would’ all be right ‘if’ you can also rewrite history,like many on here are trying to do,to show that the US truck manufacturing industry went under just like ours did and took all of those North American operators who’d bought US products with it and that setting up Kenworth Australia was a totally wrong move for the Australian truck manufacturing industry and that their balance of payments and road transport industry would have been much better off if they’d just imported zb Volvos and Scanias instead.
Dave the Renegade:
I don’t think Johnnie was referring to North America when he started this thread Carryfast.You seem to have turned it into a Detroit versus UK battle ground.So odd and strange,a bit like life .
Cheers Dave.
The reason as to why US trucks are important to the topic is because that’s where the uk makers were (rightly) getting their ideas and componentry from to compete in the marketplace with the new ideas which were taking place in Europe at the time as the AEC 1970 concept showed.However unfortunately for companies like AEC instead of having buyers,in it’s home market, calling for them to put US,of the time and since,and modern European levels of power and cab comfort in the thing,they could only design it within the constraints of the type of thinking which applied in the mindset of it’s customers at the time.
So while Scania,Volvo and DAF etc was getting on with developing their future products British firms like AEC were just able to come up with a day cab,cab over Pete type look alike concept with a non turbocharged,underpowered motor,with the hint that a 350 hp + turbocharged motor is what the thing really needed.None of which,however, had a chance of making it into production at the time because even that was too much for the Brit buyers to get their heads around at the time .Which is exactly the type of conclusion that Bedford reached a few years later but even went for a better cab than that AEC had and established proven American power units with the right outputs and drivelines but unlike AEC actually put those advanced (for the time) products into production.
The rest is history it was all too late because of the delays in the thinking of their home market buyers at the time and it’s no fault of Bedford,and the rest,that their products still are’nt in production with accepted modern day European and US type levels of comfort with power outputs to match.
So if I understand you correctly carryfast it was all the fault of the yanks for feeding us some inferior components and the the people in charge of our manufacturers who had looked across the atlantic instead of looking across the north sea for the new ideas and technology that is amazing and as they say you are never too old to learn
cheers Johnnie
That ‘would’ all be right ‘if’ you can also rewrite history,like many on here are trying to do,to show that the US truck manufacturing industry went under just like ours did and took all of those North American operators who’d bought US products with it and that setting up Kenworth Australia was a totally wrong move for the Australian truck manufacturing industry and that their balance of payments and road transport industry would have been much better off if they’d just imported zb Volvos and Scanias instead.
Right then Carryfast.Out of all the Countries that manufacture Trucks or as I prefer lorries,who has got it right.Lets have your honest verdict.None of the who should have done this and that or maybe."Who has got it right ".
Cheers Dave.
Dave the Renegade:
I don’t think Johnnie was referring to North America when he started this thread Carryfast.You seem to have turned it into a Detroit versus UK battle ground.So odd and strange,a bit like life .
Cheers Dave.
I just want to say what a complete opposite the new DD series 60 of today is from the old 2-stroker. The one in my 2009 Freightliner stops reving at 1800 rpm’s and came with a video saying you can lug it down without hurting it, this is good for me because i’m one of the ‘lug it down till it’s nearly at a standstill’ brigade (if there’s enough for a brigade)
It’s not been mentioned so maybe i’m wrong but i thought lorry drivers weren’t allowed to sleep in their cabs in the early years, i used to hear stories of the ministery men wakeing drivers up from their cabs at night and makeing them get digs.
Course back when i was young i believed everything lorry drivers told me
Trev_H:
The available torque range on a green grenade was like most 2 strokes, [zb]! The fact they needed so many gears speaks volumes ! have you ever driven some of these machines you are commenting on Carryfast, they made a nice sound but that would get on your wick after 2 hrs and they were a fuel and oil consumption dinosaur !
You are jesting Trev arn’t you! He’s read all the DDs spec manuals so he dosen’t need to get behind the wheel,he just memorises all the pages! how else could he spout all that (zb) word perfect as well!! Cheers Dennis.
The fact is Bewick I’m speaking from experience whereas you never even drove a zb Brit spec 7 Litre or 9 Litre one because you told the salesman to zb off remember.
One of the rather better decisions of my time as a road haulier!!! Bewick.
Trev_H:
The available torque range on a green grenade was like most 2 strokes, [zb]! The fact they needed so many gears speaks volumes ! have you ever driven some of these machines you are commenting on Carryfast, they made a nice sound but that would get on your wick after 2 hrs and they were a fuel and oil consumption dinosaur !
You are jesting Trev arn’t you! He’s read all the DDs spec manuals so he dosen’t need to get behind the wheel,he just memorises all the pages! how else could he spout all that (zb) word perfect as well!! Cheers Dennis.
The fact is Bewick I’m speaking from experience whereas you never even drove a zb Brit spec 7 Litre or 9 Litre one because you told the salesman to zb off remember.
One of the rather better decisions of my time as a road haulier!!! Bewick.
Dave the Renegade:
I don’t think Johnnie was referring to North America when he started this thread Carryfast.You seem to have turned it into a Detroit versus UK battle ground.So odd and strange,a bit like life .
Cheers Dave.
I just want to say what a complete opposite the new DD series 60 of today is from the old 2-stroker. The one in my 2009 Freightliner stops reving at 1800 rpm’s and came with a video saying you can lug it down without hurting it, this is good for me because i’m one of the ‘lug it down till it’s nearly at a standstill’ brigade (if there’s enough for a brigade)
Charles
It’s surprising how so many seem to confuse the fact that a two stroke is firing twice as often per revolution so it ‘sounds’ like it’s revving at twice the revs it’s actually running at.That 1,800 rpm figure is’nt much different to the 2,000 rpm or so that the two strokes delivered their maximum power at.Lugging it down til it’s almost at a standstill is just wasting torque,and fuel,because it just means that the thing is running in a higher gear where a lower gear would put less load on the engine and provides more torque at the wheels and if the revs are kept at the right point in a slightly lower gear it also provides more roadspeed.Using a too high gear is just as inefficient as using a too low one.
But if you really must lug the nuts off the thing then that old naturally aspirated,let alone a turbocharged,14 Litre 12V71,in that old Kenworth pulling that b doubles in the video I posted,or a turbocharged 8V92,shows that a two stroke can do that with the best of them,just so long as it was’nt a naturally aspirated 7 or 9 Litre bus engine,specced by one of the few typical skinflint British guvnors in the day,running at 32 t,who even bought them.
Dave the Renegade:
I don’t think Johnnie was referring to North America when he started this thread Carryfast.You seem to have turned it into a Detroit versus UK battle ground.So odd and strange,a bit like life .
Cheers Dave.
The reason as to why US trucks are important to the topic is because that’s where the uk makers were (rightly) getting their ideas and componentry from to compete in the marketplace with the new ideas which were taking place in Europe at the time as the AEC 1970 concept showed.However unfortunately for companies like AEC instead of having buyers,in it’s home market, calling for them to put US,of the time and since,and modern European levels of power and cab comfort in the thing,they could only design it within the constraints of the type of thinking which applied in the mindset of it’s customers at the time.
So while Scania,Volvo and DAF etc was getting on with developing their future products British firms like AEC were just able to come up with a day cab,cab over Pete type look alike concept with a non turbocharged,underpowered motor,with the hint that a 350 hp + turbocharged motor is what the thing really needed.None of which,however, had a chance of making it into production at the time because even that was too much for the Brit buyers to get their heads around at the time .Which is exactly the type of conclusion that Bedford reached a few years later but even went for a better cab than that AEC had and established proven American power units with the right outputs and drivelines but unlike AEC actually put those advanced (for the time) products into production.
The rest is history it was all too late because of the delays in the thinking of their home market buyers at the time and it’s no fault of Bedford,and the rest,that their products still are’nt in production with accepted modern day European and US type levels of comfort with power outputs to match.
So if I understand you correctly carryfast it was all the fault of the yanks for feeding us some inferior components and the the people in charge of our manufacturers who had looked across the atlantic instead of looking across the north sea for the new ideas and technology that is amazing and as they say you are never too old to learn
cheers Johnnie
That ‘would’ all be right ‘if’ you can also rewrite history,like many on here are trying to do,to show that the US truck manufacturing industry went under just like ours did and took all of those North American operators who’d bought US products with it and that setting up Kenworth Australia was a totally wrong move for the Australian truck manufacturing industry and that their balance of payments and road transport industry would have been much better off if they’d just imported zb Volvos and Scanias instead.
Right then Carryfast.Out of all the Countries that manufacture Trucks or as I prefer lorries,who has got it right.Lets have your honest verdict.None of the who should have done this and that or maybe."Who has got it right ".
Cheers Dave.
The answer is there.It’s the Ozzies and if British buyers had followed the colonials in their buying criteria then we’d probably still have a truck manufacturing industry just like them.
Just to throw a few more ideas into the melting pot following replies posted in the last few days from various contributors.
For all Carryfast’s stubborness, maybe he does has a point in that UK lorry manufacturers should have looked more at US driveline design, although maybe the two-stroke engine was not the ideal solution. ■■■■■■■ engines and Fuller gearboxes became very popular in ERF, Atkinson etc. lorries. Yes, there is proof that such as AEC were looking across the Atlantic, but history shows that they should have been looking in the other direction towards Europe and Scandinavia.
As has been posted earlier even today in the UK the average lorry journey is quite short, so market conditions here are completely different to those in North America and Australia.
Australia has never had its own heavy commercial vehicle MANUFACTURING industry. Assembly from CKD components yes, going way back to AEC and Hastings Deering. But once UK designs were found seriously wanting in Australia in the 1960s, the Aussies switched in droves to American engines.
By the way Carryfast, Gardner’s first diesel engine designs were two-strokes, albeit for marine propulsion purposes.
Two stroke Gardners? you’ll have “carryfast” jumping off the white cliffs of Dover at the very thought of it!! Give him a push someone,we don’t want him “bottling” at the last second!! Cheers Bewick.
gingerfold:
Just to throw a few more ideas into the melting pot following replies posted in the last few days from various contributors.
For all Carryfast’s stubborness, maybe he does has a point in that UK lorry manufacturers should have looked more at US driveline design, although maybe the two-stroke engine was not the ideal solution. ■■■■■■■ engines and Fuller gearboxes became very popular in ERF, Atkinson etc. lorries. Yes, there is proof that such as AEC were looking across the Atlantic, but history shows that they should have been looking in the other direction towards Europe and Scandinavia.
As has been posted earlier even today in the UK the average lorry journey is quite short, so market conditions here are completely different to those in North America and Australia.
So how is it that New Zealand is also a big market for KW’s considering that it’s distances and roads are’nt much different than here .
But the Ozzies seem to think (rightly) that they have a truck ‘manufacturing’ industry which is certainly more than what we’ve got now.The fact is most of the US truck manufacturing industry is based on assembly operations of bought in components,just the same as the Ozzy operations.It seems to me that US,Ozzy,and New Zealand thinking is actually just the real British way as developed in the colonies but ironically the Brits in the home country lost the plot in knowing where they belong.
I think the weight limit in Aus is slightly higher than here and so are the distances travelled,i dont think roadtrains would suit our congested road network.New Zealand was a big customer of ours for a long time but they cant buy whats not available.Everythings bigger in the USA especially their toilet rolls
.
.Which is exactly the type of conclusion that Bedford reached a few years later but even went for a better cab than that AEC had and established proven American power units with the right outputs and drivelines but unlike AEC actually put those advanced (for the time) products into production.
(if there’s enough for a brigade)
considering that it’s distances and roads are’nt much different than here